Now This Is Good Idea!

A cool way to help save the planet.

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101272

Patrick
'93 Cobra
'83 LTD

Patrick wrote:
> A cool way to help save the planet.
>
> http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101272

I'm staying away from it until the bugs are found and worked out. It is
nice to see some larger vehicles jumping on the band wagon. And with
295-hp, 335-lb-ft torque, it doesn't look too shabby.

--
Sean

"Fao, Sean" -WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
...
> Patrick wrote:
> > A cool way to help save the planet.
> >
> > http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101272
>
> I'm staying away from it until the bugs are found and worked out. It is
> nice to see some larger vehicles jumping on the band wagon. And with
> 295-hp, 335-lb-ft torque, it doesn't look too shabby.

Seems a bit low on torque for a 5,000+ lb vehicle, but I suppose torque is
typical of the relatively small ejgine it has. I suppose they make up for it
with gearing, being as how it has an overdrive transmission.

Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no good. Too
difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older cars are
cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost, cheaper parts cost,
and easy to do the work yourself.

Cory

Cory Dunkle

>
> Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
> vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no good.
> Too difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older
> cars are cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost, cheaper
> parts cost, and easy to do the work yourself.
>
> Cory
>

You're still 20 or so, i'm still 40 years older than you and you are still,
absolutely, positively, 100 % W R O N G!!!!!!!!!

All your "reasons" only point out your lack of confidence in yourself..
sorry, but that's what it's about

"Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
...
> Cory Dunkle
>
> >
> > Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
> > vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no good.
> > Too difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older
> > cars are cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost, cheaper
> > parts cost, and easy to do the work yourself.
> >
> > Cory
>
> You're still 20 or so, i'm still 40 years older than you and you are
still,
> absolutely, positively, 100 % W R O N G!!!!!!!!!
>
> All your "reasons" only point out your lack of confidence in yourself..
> sorry, but that's what it's about

Well you're totally wrong there, because I have confidence in myself and my
ability to repair my vehicle. For those thigns I am not so sure of, I ask
and take my time doing. Thw two modern vehicles I drove were a nightmare to
work on. Totaly not user-friendly. As far as reliability, the modenr one
that was fuel injected required me to pour gas down the throttle body on
cold mornings. Never had to do that with any of my carbed cars, ever. Also,
my insurance was significantly more expensive with either of the econo-box
type modern cars I drove than it was with my Galaxie, a comfortable
full-size car with a respectable amount of get-up-and-go.

Go ahead and tell me it's more expensive for me to own a classic car I pay
less than $2500 for than it is to buy a brand new car I pay $20,000+ for.
I'd rather pay for my car all at once in cash than over 5-10 years. Your
logic seems quite flawed to me. Go ahead and explain to me how I am 100%
wrong about a new, or newer car being more expensive to own. I'm listening.

I won't deny brand new cars are normally very reliable for quite a few
years, but once things start wearing out it becomes very expensive. Even
many parts for modenr cars are a lot more expensive. To troubleshoot a
modern car often requires a code reader, another expense. Too much hassle
and extra cost for me. I'd rather stick to what I know and what has not let
me down.

Cory

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Cory Dunkle
> >
> > >
> > > Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
> > > vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no
good.
> > > Too difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older
> > > cars are cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost,
cheaper
> > > parts cost, and easy to do the work yourself.
> > >
> > > Cory
> >
> > You're still 20 or so, i'm still 40 years older than you and you are
> still,
> > absolutely, positively, 100 % W R O N G!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > All your "reasons" only point out your lack of confidence in yourself..
> > sorry, but that's what it's about
>
> Well you're totally wrong there, because I have confidence in myself and
my
> ability to repair my vehicle. For those thigns I am not so sure of, I ask
> and take my time doing. Thw two modern vehicles I drove were a nightmare
to
> work on. Totaly not user-friendly. As far as reliability, the modenr one
> that was fuel injected required me to pour gas down the throttle body on
> cold mornings. Never had to do that with any of my carbed cars, ever.
Also,
> my insurance was significantly more expensive with either of the econo-box
> type modern cars I drove than it was with my Galaxie, a comfortable
> full-size car with a respectable amount of get-up-and-go.
>
> Go ahead and tell me it's more expensive for me to own a classic car I pay
> less than $2500 for than it is to buy a brand new car I pay $20,000+ for.
> I'd rather pay for my car all at once in cash than over 5-10 years. Your
> logic seems quite flawed to me. Go ahead and explain to me how I am 100%
> wrong about a new, or newer car being more expensive to own. I'm
listening.
>
> I won't deny brand new cars are normally very reliable for quite a few
> years, but once things start wearing out it becomes very expensive. Even
> many parts for modenr cars are a lot more expensive. To troubleshoot a
> modern car often requires a code reader, another expense. Too much hassle
> and extra cost for me. I'd rather stick to what I know and what has not
let
> me down.
>
> Cory
>
Cory,

You should have zipped it while you were behind, your reply did nothing to
support you original position.
Your statements examples and attitude are misguided and very unflattering.

You boorish rebuttal leaves you in a very poor light...

BTW:
I have driven many fuel injected cars & trucks into the many 100's of
thousands of miles and converted 2 from Carbureted to Fuel Injected, and
have NEVER had to pour gas down any of them...

Cory Dunkle wrote:


>
> Well you're totally wrong there, because I have confidence in myself and my
> ability to repair my vehicle. For those thigns I am not so sure of, I ask
> and take my time doing. Thw two modern vehicles I drove were a nightmare to
> work on. Totaly not user-friendly. As far as reliability, the modenr one
> that was fuel injected required me to pour gas down the throttle body on
> cold mornings. Never had to do that with any of my carbed cars, ever. Also,
> my insurance was significantly more expensive with either of the econo-box
> type modern cars I drove than it was with my Galaxie, a comfortable
> full-size car with a respectable amount of get-up-and-go.
>

Ehhh, the insurance runs about the same on all mine, 65T-Bird,
89 Mustang and 04 Murano. The Murano is higer on collision because of
airbags and such. You must have had a problem because I've never
owned or seen a FI'ed engine that had to have gas poured in the
intake, which is not something you should do anyway since only air is
ment to be in the upper intake. The only thing romotely resembling a
liquid that belongs in an upper intake plenum is nitrous oxide.

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate

You forgot to add
that "New car smell"

*wink*

Kate

"Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
...
| Cory Dunkle
|
| >
| > Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
| > vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no good.
| > Too difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older
| > cars are cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost, cheaper
| > parts cost, and easy to do the work yourself.
| >
| > Cory
| >
|
| You're still 20 or so, i'm still 40 years older than you and you are
still,
| absolutely, positively, 100 % W R O N G!!!!!!!!!
|
| All your "reasons" only point out your lack of confidence in yourself..
| sorry, but that's what it's about

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
: "Fao, Sean" -WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
: ...
: > Patrick wrote:
: > > A cool way to help save the planet.
: > >
: > > http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101272
: >
: > I'm staying away from it until the bugs are found and worked out. It is
: > nice to see some larger vehicles jumping on the band wagon. And with
: > 295-hp, 335-lb-ft torque, it doesn't look too shabby.
:
: Seems a bit low on torque for a 5,000+ lb vehicle, but I suppose torque is
: typical of the relatively small ejgine it has. I suppose they make up for
it
: with gearing, being as how it has an overdrive transmission.
:
: Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
: vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no good.
Too
: difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older cars
are
: cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost, cheaper parts
cost,
: and easy to do the work yourself.
:
: Cory
:
Yeah, and don't worry about all the crap your 30-year-old engine is pouring
into the atmosphere, while burning about twice as much gas per mile as a
modern car.

Paul

"Paul" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Fao, Sean" -WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote in message
> : ...
> : > Patrick wrote:
> : > > A cool way to help save the planet.
> : > >
> : > > http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101272
> : >
> : > I'm staying away from it until the bugs are found and worked out. It
is
> : > nice to see some larger vehicles jumping on the band wagon. And with
> : > 295-hp, 335-lb-ft torque, it doesn't look too shabby.
> :
> : Seems a bit low on torque for a 5,000+ lb vehicle, but I suppose torque
is
> : typical of the relatively small ejgine it has. I suppose they make up
for
> it
> : with gearing, being as how it has an overdrive transmission.
> :
> : Anyhow, nice idea to save gas, but I don't think I'll ever get another
> : vehicle newer than the early '70s. I tried it twice and it was no good.
> Too
> : difficult, frustrating, and time consuming to work on. Also, older cars
> are
> : cheaper to own. Less initial cost, less insurance cost, cheaper parts
> cost,
> : and easy to do the work yourself.
> :
> : Cory
> :
> Yeah, and don't worry about all the crap your 30-year-old engine is
pouring
> into the atmosphere, while burning about twice as much gas per mile as a
> modern car.
>
> Paul

Actually my engine is about 9 months old. My car gets only slightly worse
mileage than a modern 'full-size' car (13-14 MPG around town, I've seen as
high as 16.4-17 MPG on the highway) and would be equivalent if I had an
overdrive transmission. I'll get better mileage when I put a bigger cam in
and a bette rintake, as it will lower my compression so I can run more
timing on a better curve. Also, whenever the transmission goes it will be
replaced by an AOD, or if I decide to go crazy a T5. Then in will go gears i
n the 3.50-3.77 range which will give better mileage around town and allow
the engien to run at a better suited RPM in overdrive at highway speed.

A properly tuned small block in a full-size car is quite easy on the
environment compared to all those 4 banger beaters you see spewing smoke out
the exhaust and leaking oil and other fluids all over the place. Not to
mention the obscene amount of pollution that goes into making a new car.
It's easier on the environment to maintain older cars that are already built
and the price in pollution to create them already paid than to buy a new car
every 5-10 years and the gross amounts of pollution that goes into creating
a new car.

So in around town driving, which is what at least 3/4 of my driving is these
days, I get about the same mileage as a modern full-size car, and better
than most trucks that soccer moms seem to drive these days. As far as
pollution goes, my PCV valve works just fine and dandy.f I'll pass on the
EGR valve, I want my mileage to go up, not down. Cat converters are way too
expensive for myself, a college student, being as how they offer _ME_ no
real benefit. Maybe someday down the road if I decide to go with the whole
modern fuel injected 5.0 swap I'll do that, but I am leaning towards a 460
for the next time it needs a new engine.

Cory